Piece about betting shops on Green Lanes on Radio 4

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on April 1, 2010 at 19:14

Please also be ware of David Lammy's recent response on this issue over on another blog post:

Clive,

Thank you for your points, I have tried to respond to each in turn.

You state “there are problems with his approach to the problem” and go on to mention the Hackney Council proposal through the Sustainable Communities Act to tackle betting shop clustering, as well as referring to the futility of engaging with William Hill.

1) You state that corresponding with William Hill is “a waste of time and effort”

For you it may well be, but corresponding with William Hill and making the responses public are further evidence for those yet to be convinced about the nature of the betting industry.

I have never stated, nor have I ever implied, that I am “trying to persuade the gambling industry by reasoned argument”. The reason I do so is because I believe it is powerful to any ambivalent party to see the arguments of those who benefit from the legislation crumble in the face of reasoned debate.

2) You state that I have only became “active publicly on this issue only in the run-up to the election”

A search of my website shows that I first wrote a letter to the Haringey Independent in November 2007 regarding betting shop applications. I have written to oppose new licenses throughout the last 3 years, and organised a public meeting at the start of 2009 regarding the subject.

Please find the following:

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/65321
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/91452
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/92356
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/94086

This was all before the start of this campaign in November 2009. I will be campaigning on this issue during the general election campaign and beyond until we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

3) You imply that I am only concerned with the Sustainable Communities proposal by Hackney Council

This is completely false. The post of 25/02 makes no mention of the Sustainable Communities Act, I have only mentioned it once before on Harringay Online (and no where else) in passing. In no way was it ever made clear, or even implied, that it was the main tract of my approach.

Before even writing to John Denham, I had pursued various other methods that are quite well documented. Firstly, I have sought to publicise the campaign to garner public endorsement for the programme. This has involved writing an article in the Evening Standard, publicising correspondence with William Hill and promoting the campaign on BBC Radio 5Live. As a result, I have received letters of support from people across London and the country. My office has responded to each of these in turn, asking them to write to their local MP to support my campaign. This is essential to pave the way for substantive legislating reform.

Secondly, I have led the campaign within government for reform of the act. I have spoken (and written) to Gerry Sutcliffe, the Sports Minister directly with responsibility for the 2005 Gambling Act. The pre-cursor to this was aggregating and measuring the strength of opinion in the local community via the online petition.

The “Hackney proposal” is just one option that is available. It happens to be that it is one which is currently being reviewed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and has a good chance of succeeding before the General Election. Given the position we are in, it would be worthwhile to lend it our support.

4) You state that the “Hackney proposal” will only add “weak clauses to a separate vague Act will be of no practical use in addressing the flaws of the Gambling Act”

This is also untrue. The Hackney proposal makes direct changes to the 2005 Gambling Act by giving councils the same powers they are afforded the police the number and location of bars, pubs and clubs in the 2003 Licensing Act. These powers allow councils to oppose further gambling licenses on the basis there are enough already in the applied for area. This is not “tinkering with one Act to correct fundamental problems of another” it is a proposal that goes to the heart of the Act you, I and others have identified as being the problem.

Moreover, the “Hackney proposal” would amend the Planning Class Uses, ending the classification of a betting shop as any other financial or professional service and re-classifying it in its own category.

New betting shops would need to then not only obtain a gambling license, which councils can oppose on the basis of clustering, but separate planning permission, which council planning authorities could also oppose on the basis of clustering.

I hope you will agree that these are a significant increase in powers for councils to deal with the problem and I trust that the officers Hackney Council are in as good a position as any to determine which powers they would need.

I hope this helps clear up any questions you might have.

David

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page